Just a few decades left for coral reefs

Further to my mention of Ken Caldiera’s recent Scientific American article “The Great Climate Experiment” the other day, I wanted to call attention to this passages as well:

the vast oceans resist change, but change they will. At no time in Earth’s past—with the possible exception of mass-extinction events—has ocean chemistry changed as much and as rapidly as scientists expect it to over the coming decades. When CO2 enters the oceans, it reacts with seawater to become carbonic acid. In high enough concentrations, this carbonic acid can cause the shells and skeletons of many marine organisms to dissolve—particularly those made of a soluble form of calcium carbonate known as aragonite.

Scientists estimate that more than a quarter of all marine species spend part of their lives in coral reefs. Coral skeletons are made of aragonite. Even if chemical conditions do not deteriorate to the point where shells dissolve, acidification can make it more difficult for these organisms to build them. In just a few decades there will be no place left in the ocean with the kind of chemistry that has supported coral-reef growth in the geologic past. It is not known how many of these coral-dependent species will disappear along with the reefs.

I have written about ocean acidification here in the past, and not much has changed since then.  It is still an under-discussed and truly calamitous prospect.  Its under-discussed nature is even more undeserved given the increase in talk of geoengineering “solutions” to climate change, solutions that mostly ignore the carbon accumulating in the oceans. I am also reminded of Jennifer Marohasey’s old blog and how she mixed posts on her love of scuba-diving in the Great Barrier Reef in with her climate science denialism.  I really have a hard time reconciling that kind of thing from someone pretending to disbelieve the science.  Is it just “IBGYBG” at a global and millennial scale?

Anyway, what struck me in this passage is the time frame Dr. Caldiera states, “just a few decades” and the certainty with which he states it.  There are no qualifiers to be seen and given the caution he has exercised in his predictive assertions elsewhere in the article I am inclined to think he means it that way.

That is not that far into the future.  What a loss we are inflicting on the planet and our own future.

Just a few decades left for coral reefs [A Few Things Ill Considered]

Posted: 09 Sep 2012 06:06 PM PDT

Further to my mention of Ken Caldiera’s recent Scientific American article “The Great Climate Experiment” the other day, I wanted to call attention to this passages as well:

the vast oceans resist change, but change they will. At no time in Earth’s past—with the possible exception of mass-extinction events—has ocean chemistry changed as much and as rapidly as scientists expect it to over the coming decades. When CO2 enters the oceans, it reacts with seawater to become carbonic acid. In high enough concentrations, this carbonic acid can cause the shells and skeletons of many marine organisms to dissolve—particularly those made of a soluble form of calcium carbonate known as aragonite.

Scientists estimate that more than a quarter of all marine species spend part of their lives in coral reefs. Coral skeletons are made of aragonite. Even if chemical conditions do not deteriorate to the point where shells dissolve, acidification can make it more difficult for these organisms to build them. In just a few decades there will be no place left in the ocean with the kind of chemistry that has supported coral-reef growth in the geologic past. It is not known how many of these coral-dependent species will disappear along with the reefs.

I have written about ocean acidification here in the past, and not much has changed since then.  It is still an under-discussed and truly calamitous prospect.  Its under-discussed nature is even more undeserved given the increase in talk of geoengineering “solutions” to climate change, solutions that mostly ignore the carbon accumulating in the oceans. I am also reminded of Jennifer Marohasey’s old blog and how she mixed posts on her love of scuba-diving in the Great Barrier Reef in with her climate science denialism.  I really have a hard time reconciling that kind of thing from someone pretending to disbelieve the science.  Is it just “IBGYBG” at a global and millennial scale?

Anyway, what struck me in this passage is the time frame Dr. Caldiera states, “just a few decades” and the certainty with which he states it.  There are no qualifiers to be seen and given the caution he has exercised in his predictive assertions elsewhere in the article I am inclined to think he means it that way.

That is not that far into the future.  What a loss we are inflicting on the planet and our own future.

Lecture 1: Why is Science Awesome?

That was a scene from Monty Python’s Holy Grail, demonstrating the lighter side of the plague. Who knew there was a lighter side of plague? Of course the darker side is easier to envision. This is a graph showing estimated human population over the last millenium. That enormous dip during around 1350 is not a result of people having less babies – as much as 10-20% of the entire human population may have been wiped out in that decade in the mid 14th century by a tiny bacterium called Yersinia pestis. In this course, we’re going to be talking about a lot of unpleasant things, from viruses that make you bleed from your eyes, to bacteria that give you such terrible diarrhea that you die from dehydration, to infectious diseases with the potential to wipe out humanity.

But we’re also going to discuss some really great things like vaccines, turning viruses into antibiotics, and even sex. I realize that sex in the context of infectious disease doesn’t sound like a pleasant topic, but I’m talking about a theory that suggests that the whole reason sex evolved in the first place was to help us evade infectious microorganisms. And of course, we’re going to be discussing science itself, which is awesome.

Why is Science Awesome?

Principally, science is awesome because we are not. Our ability to perceive things is limited and flawed, our memories are limited and flawed, and our minds are filled with biases that distort reality even when the information is right in front of us. Science helps us overcome our own limitations (to the extent we are able).

About basicrulesoflife

Year 1935. Interests: Contemporary society problems, quality of life, happiness, understanding and changing ourselves - everything based on scientific evidence. Artificial Intelligence Foundation Latvia, http://www.artificialintelligence.lv Editor.
This entry was posted in All Posts, Are We doomed?. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s